China, Not our Friend.

[David Floyd]

no the holocaust was when hitler slaughtered the jews in the 30's and 40's in germany.

Also known as genocide. The terms "Holocaust" and "genocide" should be interchangeable, unless you believe that the Holocaust was worse than, say, the slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Also known as genocide. The terms "Holocaust" and "genocide" should be interchangeable, unless you believe that the Holocaust was worse than, say, the slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks.

*yawn* what an absurdity. and completely tangential to any possible point. it has nothing to do w/ worse then. it has to do w/ specifics. genocide is a general term, the holocaust refers to a specific event. its that simple. don't ask me about it again. a child could understand that.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
yavoon,



Because your insistence of knowing about the circumstances implies that you think there is a set of circumstances in which the systematic slaughter of 10 million people would be perfectly acceptable.

UR,



Why won't you just tell me whether or not you think torture is wrong? There is no slippery slope or logical fallacy. Is there some reason you don't want to answer?



You're still avoiding the question. If you don't believe in objective moral truth, then you obviously don't believe that torture is morally wrong, so why not just say so, and save everyone a lot of time? On the other hand, if you DO believe torture is morally wrong, then obviously you believe in some objective truth, so what does it matter where I say it comes from? You already believe it's there.

did u not read how I view morality? if not re-read it. when u understand it, come back and ask me questions that are not so inane and malicious. u'd do great at a witch trial.

[David Floyd]

*yawn* what an absurdity. and completely tangential to any possible point. it has nothing to do w/ worse then. it has to do w/ specifics. genocide is a general term, the holocaust refers to a specific event. its that simple. don't ask me about it again. a child could understand that.

I don't see the big deal. I already admitted to using the term "Holocaust" for a specific purpose - to provide you and others with a readily recognizable example that is impossible to agree with.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I don't see the big deal. I already admitted to using the term "Holocaust" for a specific purpose - to provide you and others with a readily recognizable example that is impossible to agree with.

I'll cut to the chase. it is possible but extraordinarily unlikely that I would find genocide morally acceptable. happy?

[David Floyd]

did u not read how I view morality? if not re-read it. when u understand it, come back and ask me questions that are not so inane and malicious. u'd do great at a witch trial.

I've read the relevant post several times, and each time I come away with the impression that while you DO find the Holocaust absolutely wrong, you find it absolutely wrong because of some unspecified circumstances, not because the act of genocide is wrong in any circumstance.

I find it interesting that you and UR are both resorting to the tactic of refusing to answer my questions and points by claiming that they are "malicious", "inane", etc. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just want you to answer the damn question.

[David Floyd]

I'll cut to the chase. it is possible but extraordinarily unlikely that I would find genocide morally acceptable. happy

Then you have no absolute moral objection to genocide, do you? And as such you have no logical objection to the Holocaust, either.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I've read the relevant post several times, and each time I come away with the impression that while you DO find the Holocaust absolutely wrong, you find it absolutely wrong because of some unspecified circumstances, not because the act of genocide is wrong in any circumstance.

I find it interesting that you and UR are both resorting to the tactic of refusing to answer my questions and points by claiming that they are "malicious", "inane", etc. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just want you to answer the damn question.

u see this is the problem david. ur points are inane. since I know if I go "down that road." its nothing but stupidity to follow. so I have to have the fortitude to not fall for it. and simply accept that ur gna try some form of "calling me out."

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Then you have no absolute moral objection to genocide, do you? And as such you have no logical objection to the Holocaust, either.

thats the poorest logic in the history of mankind. u have no concept of circumstances? I mean I can understand not agreeing, but lacking the concept shows the logical capability of a 2 year old.

[David Floyd]

u see this is the problem david. ur points are inane. since I know if I go "down that road." its nothing but stupidity to follow. so I have to have the fortitude to not fall for it. and simply accept that ur gna try some form of "calling me out."

Well, if you are so obviously smarter than I am, why not just answer the question and make me look like a fool?

"The fortitude not to fall for it" :snort:

The most creative excuse I've seen yet for avoiding my questions.

thats the poorest logic in the history of mankind. u have no concept of circumstances? I mean I can understand not agreeing, but lacking the concept shows the logical capability of a 2 year old.

No, I DO understand the concept of circumstances. Circumstances are what come into play when deciding whether or not you should commit an act, not whether or not the act is right or wrong. Those are not the same thing.

For example:

"Lying to my girlfriend isn't wrong because, in this case, it isn't coercive. However, lying would be inadvisable because if I were caught, she wouldn't trust me again. Therefore, I won't lie."

See what I'm getting at? Circumstances ARE important, but do not determine whether or not an action is right or wrong.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by mindseye

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Pardon my curiosity, but I'm assuming — based on what you said above — that you can also run for political office (at any level of government, i.e., local, provincial, national) as something other than a member of the Communist Party? You could get away with writing a letter to the editor in the local paper criticizing leaders and nothing untoward would happen to you? You could access the entire Internet — including sites "forbidden" and "blocked" by your authorities — with the government's full knowledge and they wouldn't necessarily do anything to inhibit you?

Please note that I said "not all that different", obviously there are some differences.

I was aware of that. Your emoticon was unnecessary.

* I could not run for political office in Germany, Brazil, or Japan either, right? I'm a foreigner!

**shrug** OK, then. My question still stands, but let me clarify it a bit: "...that a Chinese citizen can also run for political office (at any level of government, i.e., local, provincial, national) as something other than a member of the Communist Party?"

* You can write critical letters to the editor within limits. Did you not read earlier in this thread where I spoke of front-page newspaper stories critical of the gov't? I guess not. The press is far from free here, but there are very encouraging signs (see "vector" comment in previous post).

I missed it. My apologies. Nonetheless, the wording "within limits" is somewhat fascinating, mainly due to my experience with letter writers to the newspaper I work at. They can pretty much say and/or advocate anything they want, so long as they're not pushing for the assassination of a political leader. I assume that you can't do that in China, either, along with various other critcisms that don't fall "within limits."

* Yes, there is some internet censorship, although it's pretty limited. I can read almost any western news source (e.g. New York Times, CNN, Washington Post). One of the few exceptions to this is bbc.com (I don't know why). Some sites related to Taiwan, Tibet, Falun Gong, human rights, etc are blocked. If you really want to visit one of these sites, you can use a proxy server. The blocking has become steadily less of a nuisance since I moved here 2-1/2 years ago. No problems with email or phone calls - perhaps less monitoring than the US!

In my experience as a journalist, if governments really don't want you to know they're keeping an eye on you, you won't find out. I'm sure there's lots of survelliance going on in China, and a post-Sept. 11, 2001, America may be starting down that same path in the name of, you guessed it, security.

Personally, I think free media and the Internet will be the major tools that will one day finally loosen the grip the Chinese Communist Party has on the nation. It's just a matter of time and patience. But that's just me. I really want to see a Chinese republic in my lifetime.

Gatekeeper

[David Floyd]

Look, here's the problem with your "circumstances" argument. You believe that in some unspecified circumstances, genocide is morally permissable. Therefore, in those circumstances, you will commit genocide, or at least you would not consider it wrong to do so.

Now, you've left out a step or two. Namely, what are those circumstances, and what makes them special? Further, why aren't the circumstances in which someone else would commit genocide equally special? What this is coming down to is you saying that "In x circumstance, I would not feel bad about committing y act." But this is pretty useless because it does not address the question of right and wrong. Sure, you're trying to justify the action based upon your desires or whims ("A fat kid beat me up, so when I grow up I'm going to kill fat people"), but so what? This is natural human behavior, shown by any criminal anywhere.

Ultimately, what you are saying is that whatever you can justify and feel OK about is morally permissable - it simply depends on "the circumstances". And I don't see how this is any different from moral relativists who claim "it all depends on how YOU feel about it."

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd




No, I DO understand the concept of circumstances. Circumstances are what come into play when deciding whether or not you should commit an act, not whether or not the act is right or wrong. Those are not the same thing.

ok I see the problem. this is easy. should/should not is the bases of all morality. a moral decision is determining what a person "ought" to do. u r simply splicing it up arbitrarily. eminates from the whole circle jerk thing u had earlier.

[David Floyd]

should/should not is the bases of all morality.

Fine, but surely you can see the distinction of "should/should not" because the action is wrong, and "should/should not" because the action might lead to an undesirable result.

"Should I drive to the store in the ice storm" is not a moral decision, although it IS a decision about what you ought or ought not do.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Look, here's the problem with your "circumstances" argument. You believe that in some unspecified circumstances, genocide is morally permissable. Therefore, in those circumstances, you will commit genocide, or at least you would not consider it wrong to do so.

Now, you've left out a step or two. Namely, what are those circumstances, and what makes them special? Further, why aren't the circumstances in which someone else would commit genocide equally special? What this is coming down to is you saying that "In x circumstance, I would not feel bad about committing y act." But this is pretty useless because it does not address the question of right and wrong. Sure, you're trying to justify the action based upon your desires or whims ("A fat kid beat me up, so when I grow up I'm going to kill fat people"), but so what? This is natural human behavior, shown by any criminal anywhere.

Ultimately, what you are saying is that whatever you can justify and feel OK about is morally permissable - it simply depends on "the circumstances". And I don't see how this is any different from moral relativists who claim "it all depends on how YOU feel about it."

I understand the system is complex. and u might object to the fact that because of that u can't claim grand sweeping claims. nonetheless the complexity of a system does not invalidate it. the concept of looking at the circumstances of an act in order to determine its morality is not new. I believe in the objectivity of the determination and I understand ur concern about how "complex" that can become. but there is no reason to think morality should be simple.